Latest on MJJC

Murray won't be asked to pay restitution

LastTear said:
So if the figure (or at least part of it) was based on loss of income then any monies recovered should go the estate, including KJ share?
Click to expand...

that's the other part of it. In the criminal trial anything Murray was ordered to pay would most probably gone to the Estate. The civil ones will go to whomever filed it. So you also have that.

But I'm personally thinking that the restitution idea was Walgren's, he wanted to figuratively prison Murray for the rest of his life with that high amount. He asked Estate for losses from TII and they gave him $100M number. then Jackson's realized that Pastor would most probably will give him the maximum - as we have seen before- and that would have given AEG the chance to argue "but they are already compensated / Murray is ordered to pay" and significantly reduce their financial responsibility. So the Jackson's said to Walgren stop his request and they'll handle it on civil cases. Estate and children's ad litem looks from business perspective and as probably they all knew that Murray couldn't pay to start with,they didn't have a financial reason to push for it.

I think this high restitution was Walgren's idea to literally screw Murray over , he didn't care about collecting it, he just wanted to put him in huge debt. But now there's a calculation going on who they can collect big amounts of money from. That's what I'm thinking.
 
Thanks, Ivy. That makes sense legally, if not ethically. So, the Jacksons are "going for the gold," regardless of the damage to Michael's reputation and to his children, because of it. What they would have received from Murray, would have been NOTHING -- except a kind of closure, and as close as they were going to get for justice for Michael. They chose the MONEY.

At least they are CONSISTENT, in fail after fail, of money-making schemes, all of them having somehow to do with their dead son-and-brother, and his children be damned. The Heal the World so-called Foundation. The contract with Howard Mann, for a life of servitude, they HOPED, for Michael's children. The travesty of a "tribute concert." Even Jerm's failure to secure Neverland as a kind of Graceland property -- something he hyped before Michael's body was even cold.

So I expect this will be no different. Doesn't take rocket-science to understand the karmic wheel rotating slowly but surely and grinding them UNDER. I can't imagine they will get ANYTHING from AEG. Even if Murray trots out a NEW defense and totally changes his story, his credibility is zero.

Train-wreck, coming up.
 
ivy said:
As you can see, he suggests that if Murray was given a restitution , AEG could have asked to determine the scale of the losses and argue that the restitution from Murray is already compensation for their losses.

So any restitution by Murray could have reduced money from AEG and removing Murray from the mix now puts it on the shoulders of AEG.
Click to expand...

And they'd rather get money from AEG because they can certainly pay those $100 millions which CM would never be able to?

Once again, it's an insult to Michael, IMO : they'd rather sue those who have the cash, than the one who's guilty. After all they have heard in court, it's appalling. But who said we had to have the same values, right?
 
Well it shouldn't be about who could pay , IMO.

for example if Murray was ordered to pay the $100M ,it would literally put him in a financial prison for the rest of his life. I wouldn't care if he were able to pay $5 or $5,000 or $50,000 or $5,000,000. It would make him responsible and not forget this his whole life. That was the whole point. I think that's what Walgren went for. It's not like he was kidding himself to think that Murray could pay it. He knew he couldn't and it was a way to make life miserable for him his whole future life.

But unfortunately it seems like this is more like a calculation of "who can pay the most amount?". I want to be wrong about this but it seems like I'm not. I posted the lawyers tweet, it seems like exact same thing I've been thinking since I heard about this.
 
ivy said:
that's the other part of it. In the criminal trial anything Murray was ordered to pay would most probably gone to the Estate. The civil ones will go to whomever filed it. So you also have that.

But I'm personally thinking that the restitution idea was Walgren's, he wanted to figuratively prison Murray for the rest of his life with that high amount. He asked Estate for losses from TII and they gave him $100M number. then Jackson's realized that Pastor would most probably will give him the maximum - as we have seen before- and that would have given AEG the chance to argue "but they are already compensated / Murray is ordered to pay" and significantly reduce their financial responsibility. So the Jackson's said to Walgren stop his request and they'll handle it on civil cases. Estate and children's ad litem looks from business perspective and as probably they all knew that Murray couldn't pay to start with,they didn't have a financial reason to push for it.

I think this high restitution was Walgren's idea to literally screw Murray over , he didn't care about collecting it, he just wanted to put him in huge debt. But now there's a calculation going on who they can collect big amounts of money from. That's what I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

Thanks.That makes sense and clarifies something that has had me confused over how these things work.If the beneficiaries were to be the Estate and heirs,why would be the family the ones deciding? Katherine,I get it,but what has Joe to do with it,for example? I've been trying to understand who has the power to decide in these cases (legally) : the family/next of kin,the heirs,or is it the Prosecution? .Still,even if getting the restitution from Murray was unwise financially for the Estate,I don't think they can have high hopes of getting it from AEG and in any case,it's their responsibility to preserve MJ's legacy too,not only to make money,imo,so I can't understand how they could agree with this if they had any say.
I just don't understand how this happened,I feel so powerless.
 
thanks ivy. what u and the tweet says makes perfect sense. i believe this is exactly whats happening.
 
ivy said:
Well it shouldn't be about who could pay , IMO.

for example if Murray was ordered to pay the $100M ,it would literally put him in a financial prison for the rest of his life. I wouldn't care if he were able to pay $5 or $5,000 or $50,000 or $5,000,000. It would make him responsible and not forget this his whole life. That was the whole point. I think that's what Walgren went for. It's not like he was kidding himself to think that Murray could pay it. He knew he couldn't and it was a way to make life miserable for him his whole future life.

But unfortunately it seems like this is more like a calculation of "who can pay the most amount?". I want to be wrong about this but it seems like I'm not. I posted the lawyers tweet, it seems like exact same thing I've been thinking since I heard about this.
Click to expand...

Quoted to add my signature, well said Ivy.
 
ivy said:
Well it shouldn't be about who could pay , IMO.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it shouldn't! But sadly, it IS. I wonder if the children were even consulted, or understand what this really means?

ivy said:
for example if Murray was ordered to pay the $100M ,it would literally put him in a financial prison for the rest of his life. I wouldn't care if he were able to pay $5 or $5,000 or $50,000 or $5,000,000. It would make him responsible and not forget this his whole life. That was the whole point. I think that's what Walgren went for. It's not like he was kidding himself to think that Murray could pay it. He knew he couldn't and it was a way to make life miserable for him his whole future life.
Click to expand...

Walgren must be gutted about this. It was the closest Michael was going to come, to JUSTICE. I expect that Brazil, and Pastor, are sickened by this, as well. They did TRY. . . .

ivy said:
But unfortunately it seems like this is more like a calculation of "who can pay the most amount?". I want to be wrong about this but it seems like I'm not. I posted the lawyers tweet, it seems like exact same thing I've been thinking since I heard about this.
Click to expand...

Nope. You aren't wrong. It's a shameful, shameful thing that's happened. Michael's children are SMART, and when they are adults, I think they will GET THIS, and will do what Michael did -- put many layers of privacy between them and that miserable so-called family.
 
the person who grasps at too much loses everything
 
For the lack of better words the Jacksons put a price on Michael's head. To them, Michael was worth only 100 million dollars and not a lifetime of misery to the person who killed him and won't owe up to it.

I guess human life does have its price.
 
Ramona122003 said:
For the lack of better words the Jacksons put a price on Michael's head. To them, Michael was worth only 100 million dollars and not a lifetime of misery to the person who killed him and won't owe up to it.

I guess human life does have its price.
Click to expand...
no wonder why he ran far far away from them. it's just sad that he thought his mother was an angel. i don't buy she's being manipulated into this.
 
And that is the reason why I am praying not only for AEG to win in court but I also hope the Jackson’s including Mother Dearest are publically humiliated. They don't mind when it's MJ's name getting trashed. I'd love to see how they like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
maral;3584377 said:
no wonder why he ran far far away from them. it's just sad that he thought his mother was an angel. i don't buy she's being manipulated into this.
Click to expand...
Even if we know Michael said his morher was an angel,we don´t know if that´s what Michael thought.
 
^^just sad ain't it? that we can't even support his mother. honestly his childhood looks so much more lost when i think of what KJ is doing to her son.

Money money money= all Michael ever was
 
Victory22 said:
And he said that about her when he was in his 20's. I don't believe he felt that way at 50.
Click to expand...

He compare her to Mother Teresa back in 2001. He also called her a saint a number of times, so he still had very good feelings toward his mother that he thought of her as nearly divine.
 
Can the kids still sue murray though. i remember in 05 arvizo had till he was 18 to file
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Can the kids still sue murray though. i remember in 05 arvizo had till he was 18 to file
Click to expand...

Don't think so. That's what the guardian ad litem is for, to make legal decisions "for" the children? Plus, there is the upcoming AEG lawsuit. We don't even know if they were consulted as to their opinions, or if the ramifications were explained to them.

As far as "Michael thinking his mother was a saint" is concerned? He said a lot of things in public, that might not have matched his actual sentiments.
 
I doubt the kids even have a clue about this or have been spun some b.s lie from the family
 
I hope someday people will see how greedy this family is and that Michael kept a distance to get away from it. I hope their greed will cost them in the end. I don't know how anybody could do this to someone they say they love.
 
marebear said:
I hope someday people will see how greedy this family is and that Michael kept a distance to get away from it. I hope their greed will cost them in the end. I don't know how anybody could do this to someone they say they love.
Click to expand...
The major public and of course the detractors criticized the family saying they are greedy and such. They are still attacking them.
 
The Jacksons continue to seem to be suffering from an unrealistic, and even weird, sense of ENTITLEMENT. Public opinion doesn't change them, and those who criticize them are simply WRONG in their eyes, apparently. They have felt entitled to Michael's money -- because it was their genetics that "created" him, and because Joe's early requiring them to work like adults when they were just children, brought the Jackson Five into being? But, that was a LONG time ago. Michael forged his own, entirely indpendent career, and yet -- they thought he OWED them something. They still think that, and now have transferred that sense of their own entitlement on to his children.

This sense of entitlement is not "normal," nor loving, in ANY family. I have hoped they would just retreat into the woodwork and that Katherine would take up the job, SERIOUSLY, of being the best possible guardian for those precious children. Guess NOT.
 
MsCassieMollie said:
The major public and of course the detractors criticized the family saying they are greedy and such. They are still attacking them.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the family really had no shame. Even before Michael died, people called them greedy and dysfunctional, but they just blame the media and haters. During the whole tribute fiasco and fans called them out on their BS, specially KISS, they went on tweeter rants and divided the fanbase. They will just do the same now. That is, of course, not including doing interviews with people who talk about them like dogs right to their faces.

This family had no pride in themselves or others and only cares about money.
 
kermit.gif





This is all worse than a nightmare. :( *big sigh*
 
I dont think Michael, as a kid traumatized by his dad, had an objective image of his mother to begin with. It happens often. How hard it must be to accept the fact your mother is also responsible for what happened to you, simply because she didnt react and let it happen? It takes a lot of detachment to see your parents simply as "people", and I dont think Michael was capable of that. Just because it would have meant him being totally alone in his family. I think in a way, he may have lied to himself, consciously or not.

It stroke me as strange, in 05, that he left the country alone, to live with strangers, and didnt seek comfort with his mother. I think he called her a saint because he wanted to preserve her image, and separate her from Joe in the public's mind.

Plus, I'm wondering how much Michael didnt see/know about his mother's actions/thoughts, since he left Hayvenhurst a long time ago and didnt spend much time with his family. I seriously doubt he could have imagined her using his kids the way she has, and still let her be their guardian.
 
Agree. didnt he say he loved her but didnt trust her aswell. mj put her on a pedasal because who else did he have? and she had no problem putting things on mj lije the korean mess the victory tour etc etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top